tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post2160884289877222089..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Police: Family Prayed Instead of Getting Medical Aid for Girl Who DiedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-84179539357935040552008-08-20T06:40:00.000-04:002008-08-20T06:40:00.000-04:00my mom,a devout Christian, always says "prayer wor...my mom,a devout Christian, always says "prayer works, but God gave us sense enough to go to a doctor." Dana, i used to be a Christian(i'm now Wiccan),and i have to ask, if prayer works in and of itsself, why would we have the knowledge that we do about medical science? why not just set up "prayer healing centers" all over the nation?i'll tell u why. because,as Bill Maher said "prayer is as good as 'hoping it 'twere so'". i believe in prayer, but i also believe that medical science is here for a reason. and the poster who said that Hinn and all the others should be ashamed of themselves is absolutely right. i also think that Oral Roberts should be prosecuted for telling that poor boy's family a few yrs back not to give him his insulin bc God had "cured" him. i believe in prayer,but i also believe in medical science,and common sense. those parents should have their remaining children taken from them, and be prosecuted for child neglect, child endangerment,and negligent homicide. i only wish that a Murder 1 charge was an option in this case.wiccankitten35160https://www.blogger.com/profile/01901696890589550932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75304460468758048192008-04-06T03:54:00.000-04:002008-04-06T03:54:00.000-04:00It was probably to help digestion and remove the d...It was probably to help digestion and remove the disorders which might attend it. Also the text says that it was used for other infirmities. I'm sure prayer was used along with it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14712441330921447052008-04-06T02:50:00.000-04:002008-04-06T02:50:00.000-04:00Tom,First what evidence do you have that wine is g...Tom,<BR/><BR/>First what evidence do you have that wine is good for the stomach. I do think wine is good for the heart -- but it tends to promote stomach upset. So the Bible's one case of "recommending medicine" seems a bit off for a God-inspired book.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, are you saying that the Bible does NOT promote prayer because this text doesn't mention prayer?Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21180786555911184992008-04-05T22:04:00.000-04:002008-04-05T22:04:00.000-04:00The Bible supports the use of medicine for illness...The Bible supports the use of medicine for illnesses.<BR/><BR/>1 Timothy 5:23<BR/><BR/>Stop drinking only water and use a little wine because of your stomach and your frequent illnesses.<BR/><BR/>The Bible supports medicine and faith.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12102319206990244182008-04-03T23:00:00.000-04:002008-04-03T23:00:00.000-04:00hamilcar is right (again) and should be listened t...hamilcar is right (again) and should be listened too. The only debate is between scientists on one side and, on the other, devestated parents looking for answers who have been widely exploited by unethical people who have made an awful lot of money pushing pseudoscience and conjecture as truth. All of the people now suffering from the resurgence in measles can thank these people.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82943133643513567332008-04-01T23:24:00.000-04:002008-04-01T23:24:00.000-04:00District Supt.,I'm not calling you out on this, bu...District Supt.,<BR/><BR/>I'm not calling you out on this, but I need to get some information into the discussion, now that the Autism/Vaccines issue has been raised.<BR/><BR/>There has never been any credible scientific link between autism and vaccinations, despite a lot of press and media on the idea. This remains true today, and has only become more clear over time.<BR/><BR/>The big WHY of the story is the rise in autism diagnosis over the last few decades. There has been a huge increase in the number of autism cases found. Autism rates greatly increased. Obviously, this cries out for an explanation.<BR/><BR/>People began looking for anything that might correlate with the rise in autism incidence, and some of those people latched on to various ideas, including the hypothesis that autism is caused by mercury poisoning. The best explanation for the rise in autism diagnoses remains the simplest one: autism is better understood and better described than it used to be, and as awareness rises, so do the rates of recognition of the condition. This parallels a great many other diseases and conditions that we know of now: in the past, people simply suffered and died inexplicably, but now we are able to detect what they're suffering from, and give it a name.<BR/><BR/>The mercury connection to vaccines was through a preservative called Thimerosal, which contains small amounts of mercury. Thimerosal has been used to keep vaccines clear dangerous bacteria and fungi since the 1930s, and has a very long and clear safety record. It's never been shown to be harmful to people, and has never been credibly linked to any condition, including autism.<BR/><BR/>This was the case throughout the '80s and '90s, as the vaccine hysteria was building. Despite the lack of evidence, the decision was made to remove thimerosal from all children's vaccines about 6 years ago, "just to be on the safe side". If the autism/vaccine hypothesis was correct, we should now see a dramatic reduction in new cases of autism.<BR/><BR/>It hasn't happened. The rates are the same, despite NO children receiving any thimerosal vaccines in this country for 6 years. The hypothesis fails. (It had already been heavily discredited by other studies showing a convincing lack of correlation between autism and vaccines).<BR/><BR/>Healthy skepticism is always prudent. We know about drugs and medical procedures that don't receive enough scrutiny and wind up having to be withdrawn from the public after harming people. In any and all such cases, the only solution is to look at all of the available evidence and make the most informed decision.<BR/><BR/>Full disclosure: I have a son who is autistic. With most autism, the cause remains unknown. We're lucky in this case that we know the cause: a genetic abnormality called Fragile X Syndrome. It's the biggest <I>known</I> cause of autism.Hamilcarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00596687613810591108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-3614449092540405172008-04-01T18:55:00.000-04:002008-04-01T18:55:00.000-04:00Stan ~ You asked me this :"Do the parents have the...Stan ~ You asked me this :"Do the parents have the right to withhold non-experimental medicine (including the practice thereof) from their minor children based on religious freedom?<BR/><BR/>Should parents in general be required by legislation to follow sound medical advice from bona fide medical professionals (read: M.D. or better)?"<BR/><BR/>I'll answer this the best I can based on my current experience...Number one, with all due respect to medical professionals, they don't have all the answers. An old Bishop I trained under used to say that they were in a medical "practice" for a reason...Where this really hits home for me is that currently there is a debate over the link between certain REQUIRED vaccines and autism.<BR/><BR/>This is a problem for any parent wanting to protect their children. Will the vaccine actually produce a greater or equally as problematic situation in some children?<BR/><BR/>What did I do? I PRAYED and asked the Lord to protect my children even if the advice was bad. I would not have subjected my children or myself if I knew it was wrong no matter what the Dr. said. <BR/><BR/>Some years ago, I was seeing the Dr. about a certain treatment. During the process the news had reported problems and adverse long terms effects with the medication that the Dr. was going to recommend. I asked the Dr. about it...She told me, "Would the company put this out if they knew something was wrong with it?"<BR/><BR/>As you can see, she made the most BONEHEAD statement in her life...She was a Dr....I NEVER took the medication and I recovered quite well.<BR/><BR/>You talk about legislation and making or requiring people to do things...That doesn't sit well with me. The State and Feds require a lot of things and in m opinion I still can view the phrase "govt-assistance" as anything other than a joke. <BR/><BR/>So what I do...I simply TRUST God with these things. As I said, this was a NO BRAINER in my opinion and the medicine wasn't either experimental and the long term prognosis would have been good under the currently prescribed treatments...This, in my opinion, was MURDER. <BR/><BR/>To me this has little to do with faith and MUCH to do with ignorance and stupidity as I said before...<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I didn't get all pious, theological and deep on ya, but as Hanna M. sings "we're all in this together" (LOL)<BR/><BR/>ThanksDistrict Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68282552202718979702008-03-30T00:22:00.000-04:002008-03-30T00:22:00.000-04:00Harvey says:Anyway, I agree with the general premi...Harvey says:<BR/><BR/><I>Anyway, I agree with the general premise stated here. People should follow sound medical advice.<BR/><BR/>Miracles are NOT meant to be wholesale and are not normative, although as I said I've been a personal witness that they do occur.</I><BR/><BR/>I'll ignore the implications regarding miracles for now, and instead ask that you clarify your first statement with regard to my question, which I'll paraphrase now so as to avoid the ambiguity your answer provides:<BR/><BR/><B>Do the parents have the right to withhold non-experimental medicine (including the practice thereof) from their minor children based on religious freedom?</B><BR/><BR/><B>Should parents in general be required by legislation to follow sound medical advice from bona fide medical professionals (read: M.D. or better)?</B><BR/><BR/>Don't worry about the Hines article (it was 1981) -- it isn't really that relevant. I suppose I'm a bit curious to see what evidence of a miracle you can produce, but I'm sure you're aware of my skepticism.<BR/><BR/>Please, though, answer this question, and qualify your answer. Bear in mind the implications of either side -- either you become complicit in deaths such as the one this topic describes, or you deny at least partially religious freedom.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1040868714933649732008-03-29T23:12:00.000-04:002008-03-29T23:12:00.000-04:00Stan~ I'll try to find a better link to the Hines ...Stan~ I'll try to find a better link to the Hines story for this forum. I've seen the newspaper reports and Dr.'s report personally some years ago. This event was probably over 15 to 20 years ago. It wasn't a big thing that he was struck by lightning, the big thing was that he was confirmed dead. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I agree with the general premise stated here. People should follow sound medical advice.<BR/><BR/>Miracles are NOT meant to be wholesale and are not normative, although as I said I've been a personal witness that they do occur.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2298097989975490562008-03-28T18:34:00.000-04:002008-03-28T18:34:00.000-04:00With all due respect to Harvey and his apparent be...With all due respect to Harvey and his apparent belief that he's witnessed or "seen and been a part of the dead raising", my first reaction was an audible "Bullshit".<BR/><BR/>However, I decided to attempt the search suggested, and, after a few failed attempts due to an apparent misspelling, I found exactly <B>two</B> Google results (in the first three pages) having anything whatsoever to do with this alleged resurrection, when using "lightning milwaukee hines 1981" as my search string.<BR/><BR/>Now, if I say so myself, I'm quite adept at the use of search engines, and for even these results I had to attempt a few different variations of the theme.<BR/><BR/>At any rate, of the two results provided, one is currently under construction -- its the referenced page does not exist (the cached page is available, but even <I>its</I> links are either outdated or defunct) -- and the other was actually from a different search string ("struck by lightning milwaukee hines"), and was a site for "Streaming Faith", and it only referenced <I>Pamela</I> Hines from the search string, despite a listing also for Darrell...<BR/><BR/>At any rate, the two sites in question are hardly worthy of consideration as unbiased, independent verification of a bona fide miracle. Granted, I'm sure the event garnered plenty of attention when it occurred, but it seems just a <I>bit</I> more likely that there is a reasonably non-religious explanation, involving an unregistered but existent pulse, and a doctor (or group of doctors) who are neither experts in neuro-science nor free from the occasional mistake -- which in this case could very easily have cost a man his life.<BR/><BR/>Lucky for him, he's now a multi-millionaire evangelist instead...<BR/><BR/>I'm curious, though, as to how Harvey would answer my question:<BR/><BR/><B>Do the parents have the right to withhold non-experimental medicine (including the practice thereof) from their minor children based on religious freedom?</B><BR/><BR/>You seem to suggest that the parents in <I>this</I> case were merely blinded to the "hand of god" that was an insulin shot, but in many cases -- indeed, most assuredly in this case as well -- the parents' dogma expressely forbids the "hand of god" in certain forms.<BR/><BR/>Considering the othewise benign nature (with regard to religion -- certainly not benign with regard to medicinal value) of standard medical practice, should we or shouldn't we restrict the right of the parent to deny (or, in other similar cases, require) specific procedures based on religious preference?<BR/><BR/>Remember, this means <I>any</I> religion, <I>any</I> standard medical procedure, or <I>any</I> sufficiently disproven homeopathic or mystical "medicine".<BR/><BR/>Also, bear in mind that there are already limitations imposed -- Orthodox Jews, for instance, require burial within 24 hours of death, but in the case of a [suspected] wrongful death, an autopsy, and subsequent delay of burial rites, can be mandated.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-66787124968189009972008-03-28T16:59:00.000-04:002008-03-28T16:59:00.000-04:00Bart~ you said this ~ "Harvey, I'm glad to see tha...Bart~ you said this ~ "Harvey, I'm glad to see that you disavow giving credence to such statements as "ask anything in my name and I will give it to you", or "with faith the size of a mustard seed, you can say to a mountain, 'go over there." I guess you aren't such a literalist and a believer in inerrancy and acceptance of the plain meaning of the text by faith after all."<BR/><BR/>I can say that I don't "disavow" scripture, but I do "Rightly Divide" scripture. It's like this...That old story about the man at sea, lost on an sandbar. (Other situations fit) Nevertheless he was praying for God to deliver him...A helicopter came, he didn't go, another boat came, he didn't go, Yet someone else tried to rescue him and he refused to go. <BR/><BR/>He died and went to heaven. The first question he asked was "God, why didn't YOU deliver me off that sandbar?"<BR/><BR/>God said, "I sent a helicopter, boat and another rescurer and you FAILED to recognize me either time...What more could I do?" <BR/><BR/>These people had the answer to their prayer through sound medical advice. They refused to hear it and became selfish assuming that God was going to answer them like THEY wanted him to. That's why this is wrong.<BR/><BR/>FYI- I've seen and received MEDICALLY verifiable healings and have experienced the same myself. I've seen and been a part of the dead raising. In fact if you want to confirm something, do a Google on Bishop Darryll Hines Milwaukee, WI. He was DEAD. Struck by lightning on the job at an airport...Dr. Said it was over for him. Confirmed him dead. An HOUR later, A Praying woman of God laid hands on him and called him back to LIFE. Dr.'s said it was a medical miracle etc....but facts are that prayer was offered, and Jesus name was called on and the fella lives today to confirm with MEDICAL reports, news paper articles and all...<BR/><BR/>The lesson is CONTEXT. This family misapplied the context of God's word because they didn't do what at least you're encourging the people of God to do (Whether you know it or not) and that's examine thw WORD to see what it really says. Everytime I examine it, I'm more strengthened. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, Bart I see you're at it again...I'll be over there as soon as I've read your Marcion article. This oughta be interesting to say the least.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.District Supt. Harvey Burnetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15315686602819371111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90690944377656523882008-03-28T10:15:00.000-04:002008-03-28T10:15:00.000-04:00Do the parents have the right to withhold non-expe...<I>Do the parents have the right to withhold non-experimental medicine (including the practice thereof) from their minor children based on religious freedom?</I><BR/><BR/>I think parents have the right to withhold medication in many conditions that may be self-limited or of minor importance, regardless of their religion. <BR/><BR/>I think no parent should be allowed to withhold potentially lifesaving treatment from a child for religious reasons, however I do think parents should be able to withhold any treatment that they feel is futile as long as 2 independent physicians agree with this assessment, regardless of their religion. <BR/><BR/>I also believe that parents choosing not to vaccinate their kids should be required to attend a 5-hour course on vaccine science. If after attending that course they still choose not to vaccinate, I think that should be allowed (but religion should play no part in it).Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-28820111254011401732008-03-28T10:10:00.000-04:002008-03-28T10:10:00.000-04:00Stan,Do the parents have the right to withhold non...Stan,<BR/><BR/><B>Do the parents have the right to withhold non-experimental medicine (including the practice thereof) from their minor children based on religious freedom?</B><BR/><BR/>I'll bite. I don't know if I have all the answers, but I'll take a stab at it.<BR/><BR/>On this question, I have to come down on <B>number two.</B> We don't <I>own</I> our children. They're not ours to do with as we wish, in an absolute sense. They're free human beings with rights of their own, and until they're considered legally mature enough to exercise those rights, the rights are <I>entrusted</I> to the parents. This is a civil trust enforced by secular authority. If the parents are grossly negligent when it comes to protecting their child's rights -- or are actively violating those rights themselves -- the government must step in to protect the child. One of the primary roles of any government is to safeguard the rights of those it governs.<BR/><BR/>Resolving apparent conflicts between the rights of one person and the rights of another can sometimes be a difficult task, but in this case, I don't think it's that hard. The right of a person to "freely exercise" their religion cannot supercede the more basic rights of another person to life or liberty, for example. One set of rights is properly, and rationally more important, or more <I>primary</I>, than the other.Hamilcarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00596687613810591108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11544336609892190972008-03-28T05:42:00.000-04:002008-03-28T05:42:00.000-04:00{-----------Oh, and to those questioning the appar...{-----------<BR/><BR/>Oh, and to those questioning the apparent requirement in Texas to acknowledge a "Supreme Being"...<BR/><BR/>A state's statutes are always superceded by the federal statute, where one exists, to include the rights guaranteed in the Constitution. While Texas may have the as-yet unchallenged law requiring that one recognize a "Supreme Being's" existence, it <I>cannot</I> require that one make any other claims regarding this alleged being.<BR/><BR/>That is, you can either say explicitly that "Jessica Alba" is a "Supreme Being", or you may just as well plead the Fifth Amendment -- both are legally acceptable answers, and if either is challenged by the State of Texas, then a free trip to Washington, D.C., is in order as plaintiff.<BR/><BR/>In my case, I have refused to remove my baseball cap (which, in the two example cases to date, was red with the word "Canada" embroidered across its front) in a U.S. courtroom (once as potential juror, once as defendant in traffic court). In the first case, the bailiff quietly reminded me that I should remove my hat, to which I replied, "No, thank you, I wear it as a matter of religious expression".<BR/><BR/>His response was quite unexpected -- he immediately said, "Oh, that's perfectly fine then", and informed the judge, who had me confirm this fact to the entire court. Personally, I was looking forward to the lawsuit...<BR/><BR/>Anyway, "religion", legally speaking, is incredibly poorly defined, and as long as you don't make <I>any</I> overt claims as to the specifics of your personal religion, and so long as your claimed religious activity in no way violates any other statutes, you are in the clear. Make an overt claim, however, and you may be found out and charged with perjury, among other possible charges.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, using "religion", however loosely defined, is well within your own rights, as well.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>Stan<BR/><BR/>---------}Stan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15365016819889494172008-03-28T05:32:00.000-04:002008-03-28T05:32:00.000-04:00I must say I'm a bit annoyed that no one has yet a...I must say I'm a bit annoyed that no one has yet asked the question begging to be asked in this case:<BR/><BR/><B>Do the parents have the right to withhold non-experimental medicine (including the practice thereof) from their minor children based on religious freedom?</B><BR/><BR/>The question is just lingering out there, but hasn't yet been spoken. Well, here it is.<BR/><BR/>Before you answer, I'll lay out the dilemma of doing so:<BR/><BR/>1) Say yes, and you become complicit in this little girl's voluntary manslaughter.<BR/><BR/>2) Say no, and you deny, even a little bit, that religious freedom is something to be protected.<BR/><BR/>You see (and I realize it to be unnecessary to spell out to you all, but forgive me as I do anyway), it doesn't really matter in the long run that this girl died due to her parents' forced prevention of modern medicine. Yes, it's tragic, and we can all bemoan the fact that it happened. Sure, we'll all distance ourselves (especially the Christians) from the deluded parents, and condemn their [in]action.<BR/><BR/>Really, though, this unfortunate event serves to highlight the extreme of religious freedom in America (and elsewhere, where applicable).<BR/><BR/>Hitchens especially is quick to denounce religion in all forms, and Dawkins is fond of separating the religion from the child (he wants us to say "child of [insert religion here] parents" rather than "[insert religion here] child").<BR/><BR/>The non-believers among us are sure to agree, but when something like this incident occurs, even the "believers" must admit that the power of religious freedom can easily be misused, and if society fails to diligently monitor the uses of religious freedom, then we are <I>all</I> complicit in this little girl's death.<BR/><BR/>I am a married man, with two children of my own, and while I love my family and would fight to keep it, I also (to my wife's chagrin) recognize that a) monogamy and b) children as possession are both relics of the past which are niether necessary nor particularly helpful today.<BR/><BR/>In fact, they may not truly be relics of the past, and instead may merely be rules placed by the religions themselves...<BR/><BR/>At any rate, society has an obligation to prevent its children from being abused, neglected, and allowed to die (as in this case), and the removal of some of the key parental rights we [parents] hold so dear is the <I>only</I> way to truly make any headway.<BR/><BR/>(The problems of monogamy are a topic for another discussion, but it fosters jealousy and deceit, and too closely resembles slavery)<BR/><BR/>So as I have asked...<BR/><BR/><B>Do the parents have the right to withhold non-experimental medicine (including the practice thereof) from their minor children based on religious freedom?</B><BR/><BR/>Restricting religious freedom is clearly a dangerous path to take, but cases such as this (as clearly an extreme example) make the issue something which clearly needs consideration.<BR/><BR/>--<BR/>StanStan, the Half-Truth Tellerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04260266801557543879noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55188769749460845132008-03-27T22:28:00.000-04:002008-03-27T22:28:00.000-04:00Evan wrote: Justin I sense some sort of "pox on b...Evan wrote: <I>Justin I sense some sort of "pox on both your houses" sentiment from you. You seem to stand aloof, above it all. You are no sort of fundamentalist and you rail against communism [snip], but you don't take a stand supporting anything.</I><BR/><BR/>I stand in support of love, seeking other's benefit and interest above my own. I support love within whatever context or framework we find ourselves in. The Chinese peasant under communist rule can love his neighbor. The Sudanese militant in the middle of civil war and atrocities can still love his captives instead of torture them. Iranian man can still love his wife and not mistreat or mutilate her. The midwestern, fundamentalist Christian parent can still love her child, and get her the damned help she needs instead of making a stand for her own faith.<BR/><BR/><I>I am not so above it all that the needless death of an 11 year old girl can't still effect me emotionally.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry not to show it here on the blog, but my blood boils over this, simply because my son and I are both type-1 diabetic, and we both showed the same symptoms prior to being diagnosed and getting treatment. All that man and woman had to do was talk to a doctor and he could diagnose it over the phone, and that girl would still be alive, today. They chose their own misguided “faith” over their child's welfare. They loved themselves and their own asses (spiritually speaking) over their daughter. That little girl had no choice in the matter. That, Evan, is bullshit. I ask, where was the love for her? Who was looking out for her?<BR/><BR/>No “faith” is worth that. My reading of the bible does not require the sacrifice of my child to be acceptable to God. I'll say it again, NO <B>SANE</B> READING DOES!<BR/><BR/><I>Perhaps you are a buddhist or a gnostic and see the outlines of the Matrix behind it all so you aren't emotional about anything, but I doubt I will ever achieve that level of detachment.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not detached at all. Neither am I a buddhist or gnostic. I've never seen the Matrix movies, so I have no idea. But I'd rather have a rational conversation about this than spew my emotional venom over the whole deal, and come across as an ass.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it's too late for that...Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-85896258812803017472008-03-27T21:21:00.000-04:002008-03-27T21:21:00.000-04:00Presently, there's a lady in my church who has bre...Presently, there's a lady in my church who has breast cancer, I think. She has chosen to treat it naturally, using alternative medicines and prayer. I gather that she rationalises that prescription medication isn't necessary and its use shows a lack of faith in God.<BR/><BR/>Before I started questioning my faith and embarked on my present new journey, I had hopes that God would heal her, although I wondered why she was so adamant about resisting traditional medicine. I believed that God used doctors and other medical practitioners to help the sick and suffering. Then, I realised that it boiled down to her choice, her prerogative. So, in my mind, I left the matter alone. I was already struggling with questions I had suppressed over the years about why God healed some people, and not others.<BR/><BR/>Her faith is strong. I hope she'll get better.<BR/><BR/>Yet I won't be surprised if and when her death is announced in church.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48075671365449914322008-03-27T21:18:00.000-04:002008-03-27T21:18:00.000-04:00Evan wrote: Except when it wasn't.Luke 7:A certain...Evan wrote: Except when it wasn't.<BR/><BR/>Luke 7:<BR/><BR/>A certain centurion’s servant, who was dear to him, was sick and at the point of death.<BR/>When he heard about Jesus, he sent to him elders of the Jews,<BR/>asking him to come and save his servant.<BR/><BR/>Luke 4:<BR/><BR/>He rose up from the synagogue, and entered into Simon’s house.<BR/>Simon’s mother-in-law was afflicted with a great fever,<BR/>and they begged him for her<BR/><BR/>Matthew 17:<BR/><BR/>When they came to the multitude, a man came to him, kneeling down to him, saying,<BR/>"Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is epileptic, and suffers grievously;<BR/>for he often falls into the fire, and often into the water.<BR/>So I brought him to your disciples, and they could not cure him."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Those referenced above had faith in Y'shua's ability to heal - they were not making an appeal based on presumption. Presumption is often revealed in the after-words of, "I guess I didn't have enough faith". <BR/><BR/>Obviously, there were also those people who didn't approach Y'shua -Beautiful Feethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14868646492757287704noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58700607273095748612008-03-27T19:15:00.000-04:002008-03-27T19:15:00.000-04:00Justin I sense some sort of "pox on both your hous...Justin I sense some sort of "pox on both your houses" sentiment from you. You seem to stand aloof, above it all. You are no sort of fundamentalist and you rail against communism (which is really a Christian heresy with a soteriology, eschatology, dogmas and most of the other trappings of religion within a political framework), but you don't take a stand supporting anything. <BR/><BR/>You ask me:<BR/><BR/><I>You seem irritated that the bible has been given, by its readers, an inordinate amount of influence and power over their lives and societies.</I><BR/><BR/>I am not so above it all that the needless death of an 11 year old girl can't still effect me emotionally. Perhaps you are a buddhist or a gnostic and see the outlines of the Matrix behind it all so you aren't emotional about anything, but I doubt I will ever achieve that level of detachment.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42504725261867368892008-03-27T18:42:00.000-04:002008-03-27T18:42:00.000-04:00Evan, one more to chew on:Nobody suggests that God...Evan, one more to chew on:<BR/><BR/><I>Nobody suggests that God is pissed off because people are praying to him. He is rumored to love it.</I><BR/><BR/>Isaiah 1:11<BR/>"What are your multiplied sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of fed cattle;And I take no pleasure in the blood of bulls, lambs or goats."<BR/><BR/>An alternative reading suggests He may not like it all that much, after all.Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89845626183344730612008-03-27T18:40:00.000-04:002008-03-27T18:40:00.000-04:00Harvey saidLee Randolph, Evan, John ~ As I said wh...Harvey said<BR/><BR/>Lee Randolph, Evan, John ~ As I said when I first started posting here, "this sort of GARBAGE is wrong and I'll stand with you any day to fight against it." These parents are murders so far as I'm concerned. STUPIDITY, is the problem here, not faith. They should have better understood the relationship of God to their situation and their medical condition. This is a travesty.<BR/><BR/>Ooh, by the way...I guess I'm just one of those RESPONSIBLE MINISTERS that some don't think exist.(LOL)<BR/><BR/>Harvey, I'm glad to see that you disavow giving credence to such statements as "ask anything in my name and I will give it to you", or "with faith the size of a mustard seed, you can say to a mountain, 'go over there." I guess you aren't such a literalist and a believer in inerrancy and acceptance of the plain meaning of the text by faith after all.<BR/><BR/>Bartbart willruthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15483899663294287019noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38765061287712403922008-03-27T18:36:00.000-04:002008-03-27T18:36:00.000-04:00"provided he acknowledge the existence of a Suprem..."provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."<BR/>Apparently I'd have to lie about my gender as well to hold office in Texas. Strange. Doesn't that violate the US Constitution?goprairiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00532311590000341237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-49462519845803510262008-03-27T18:35:00.000-04:002008-03-27T18:35:00.000-04:00Evan wrote:However are you really suggesting there...Evan wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>However are you really suggesting there is an equivalence between the Bible and a group of polemical writers of the 21st century?</I><BR/><BR/>Yup.<BR/><BR/><I>Nobody has a TV network that runs 24 hours a day [snip] to bless the republic at the end of every speech.</I><BR/><BR/>Yet, that is exactly what the marxists did in the early 1900's. The USSR erected statues and shrines to Lenin and Stalin; China has done the same with Chairman Mao. A whole societal system was dedicated to the classless worker and the spirit of a united Motherland. The Bolsheviks bought into Karl Marx the way baptists buy into MacArthur or Piper. How many statues and shrines to Saddam Hussein were destroyed in the Iraq War? <BR/><BR/>A critical look at the architecture of Washington D.C. will show the worship Americans have given various Founding Fathers (Lincoln, Jefferson, Washington, etc.) I'm quite sure, no matter how pissed off Dawkins might be about it, if the number of people who “followed” his writings multiplied in this country, eventually he would become a type of god, like the the Roman Caesars. It's happened over the centuries, and will continue to do so. Atheism is not immune to religious fervor.<BR/><BR/><I>If you want to create this kind of false equivalence...</I><BR/><BR/>But it's not false equivalence. Nitchke (sp?) and Marx simply wrote books on their beliefs and philosophies. The bible is merely a compilation of many, varied writings by many, varied authors. The Apostle Paul simply wrote letters to groups of people in certain towns in Asia Minor. Luke was simply a doctor writing a couple of essays to a student/friend defending what he believed. The Pentateuch was not written by Moses, but was an oral tradition handed down through the Hebrew priests over centuries, until it was finally written down hundreds of years after.<BR/><BR/>There is no power in the writings in and of themselves. The only contain the power the reader gives them.<BR/><BR/><I>...I can see true believers of any religious type doing something this stupid...</I><BR/><BR/>You seem irritated that the bible has been given, by its readers, an inordinate amount of influence and power over their lives and societies.<BR/><BR/>Why do you think that is?Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79541848438227129072008-03-27T17:35:00.000-04:002008-03-27T17:35:00.000-04:00Justin, I agree with you that people bring their o...Justin, I agree with you that people bring their own personal biases to anything they encounter. However are you really suggesting there is an equivalence between the Bible and a group of polemical writers of the 21st century?<BR/><BR/>Nobody has a TV network that runs 24 hours a day discussing Dawkins or Dennett. There aren't buildings in every city dedicated to the study of Dawkins and Dennett. People don't erect huge symbols that refer to Dawkins and Dennett, and the president of the United States doesn't ask Harris and Hitchens to bless the republic at the end of every speech.<BR/><BR/>If you want to create this kind of false equivalence, I suggest you compare the Bible to the only actually comparable things, the Mhabarata, or the Koran, or the Hebrew Bible, or the Buddhist Sutras.<BR/><BR/>In that respect, the Bible comes somewhere in the middle of the pack, and I can see true believers of any religious type doing something this stupid, but there's no such thing as someone who is praying to Richard Dawkins, and if anybody did do it they'd piss him off for doing it.<BR/><BR/>Nobody suggests that God is pissed off because people are praying to him. He is rumored to love it.Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11761330625291151722008-03-27T15:13:00.000-04:002008-03-27T15:13:00.000-04:00goprarie:This is all part of how this country bend...goprarie:<BR/><BR/><I>This is all part of how this country bend over backwards to be tolerant of religions, any religions, as long as they are loosely christian.</I><BR/><BR/>Yeah, unless you live in Texas, where I am. I'd have to lie to hold public office in this state.<BR/><BR/>Texas Constitution, Article 1 (Bill of Rights), Section 4 (Religious Tests):<BR/><BR/><I>No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, <B>provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.</I></B> <BR/>(emphasis added)Rotten Arsenalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17121549625443719860noreply@blogger.com